Tag Archive for egalitarian at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'egalitarian'

Some Introductory Thoughts On The Anglican Church

Published by Bryan February 5, 2008 in Religion. 18 Comments

At the moment I am seriously considering starting to regularly attend a local Anglican church. I have been to one Sunday morning service, eight or so Sunday evening services, two guest lectures, and many morning prayer services hosted by the church at the university I attend, and now need to weigh the pros and cons of making it the church I regularly attend. There is a lot I like about the Anglican church in general (and this church particularly) yet I still have some reservations.

So what is it that attracts me to the Anglican church? In no particular order:

The Pros
1. Liturgy - There is a lot left to preference (unless you hold to a strict RPW) when speaking of how a worship service can be performed. I prefer a higher liturgy Sunday morning then the free for all format of a typical evangelical church, but both have their usefulness. Different forms of worship emphasize different aspects of God’s character. The liturgy in my experience emphasizes the holiness, beauty and mystery of God, things that I have missed in other church services and want to explore more.

2. Preaching - The preaching I have been exposed to has been tremendous. Although the church has a reactor, many different staff members and church members preach in the various services. This allows for a variety of perspectives on a variety of topics. Although I do not always agree with what is being said (do I ever?) the sermons are well thought out, biblically based, and have both theological and practical elements.

3. Intellectual Element - One thing that has really impressed me has been the commitment to intellectual life. I am not sure if this is unique to this specific church, or part of the Anglican character overall, but it is definitely pronounced in this church. They have a yearly lecture series that brings in a well known and knowledgeable speaker each year (Two years ago was Stanley Hauerwas, and Ian Hutchinson this last year). This commitment can also be seen in the small groups that they are starting up, other speakers they often bring in, and even simple things like publishing an announcement in the bulletin when a church member receives a Ph.d in philosophy.

4. Tradition - The evangelical church, except for a few exceptions, have lost all concept of tradition and nearly all of history. This is a huge loss, not because these things are essential to be a Christian, but because they provide a connection to our past and helps to regulate our future. The Anglican church still holds on to tradition through the creeds, prayers, and liturgy. Unlike the contemporary evangelical church, which is often afraid to look at history since they have a suspicion they will not see themselves in it, the Anglican church in my experience is not afraid to look at church history.

5. The Sacraments - Since beginning to seriously consider baptism and the Lord’s supper, my views have gone from Baptist, to Reformed, then back to Baptist but for the past year has been moving toward what I believe Anglicism teaches. Baptism of infants with baptism not only being an outward sign but a means which God uses to effect a spiritual change within us. Likewise, I believe that God uses the Lord’s supper to impart grace to those who receive it in faith. The topic of the sacraments is much to big for this entry, but one the fact that the Anglican church teaches (or at least allows for) a view that I believe has more scriptural support then other views is very attractive.

The Cons
What concerns me? Once again, in no particular order:

1. Homosexuality - The Anglican church is currently tearing itself apart over the question of homosexuality. It is not clear where the communion will go on this issue since there are major voices all over the map on it right now. What is for sure is that the firestorm over the issue is intensifying (See JI Packer explain the issues) and it will eventually come to a head. I hope and pray that homosexuality will not be embraced, but there is a strong possibility that it might be.

2. Women Priests - The Anglican church has allowed women priests for a while now. Although it has been several years since I examined the issue (I soon plan on examining it again so it is fresh in my mind to discuss) I am a complementarian and have never been convinced by the arguments in favour of women priests. Although among heavily conservative members of the Anglican church this is still an issue, it appears for my brief reading that among most this is no longer an issue.

3. The North/South Divide - On a whole the more northern churches (Europe, and North America) are liberal while the southern churches (Africa) are much more conservative. This is coming out full force on the homosexuality issue, but the divide seems to be much deeper, and will no doubt continue to arise. This is concerning because it shows a division within the Anglican communion that will not be going away soon.

4. Certain Members of the Anglican Church - Some members of the Anglican church have become so liberal they should have been excommunicated long ago. John Shelby Spong is really the best example of this I can think of. I do think the Christian tent should be a big one, but there are essentials to the faith that if you give up you are no longer in it. There are of course those in all denominations who should be excommunicated for giving up essentials of the Christian faith, but it is a concern when bishops in a hierarchical church can give up essentials and still hold on to their position.

My Conclusions
What does all this mean? There are things I really like in the Anglican church, and things that give me pause and caution. The particular Anglican church I have found seems to be a little bit on the conservative side, has an evangelical emphasis, and embraces traditional liturgy. There have been two question that have weighed on my mind regarding all this these last few months:

1. How much error can I tolerate in a church I attend? When saying that I understand that there is no doubt error within my own theology that I do not see, and that no church or denomination is without error. But what is a position that I view as error that I can live with, and what is one that stops me from regularly attending a specific church?

2. Correctness of theology is important, but so also is church practice (evangelism, missional living, discipline, accountability…etc). So although theology must be weighed in any decision to regularly attend a church, so must how that theology is lived out be weighed. Does the Anglican church (and this one in particular) meet my requirements in this regard?

Note: Since I began thinking this entry through and writing it I believe I have come to a decision on regularly attending this church or not (writing helps the thinking process). However the points and questions raised in this piece are still important and should be discussed and thought out.

Women in Church Leadership: A Brief Defense of the Evangelical Egalitarian Position

Published by Jasen Tracy June 25, 2007 in Religion. 3 Comments

Given such passages as 1st Timothy 2:8-15, “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” and 1st Timothy 3 where the assumption is that candidates for the office of overseer will be men, it might seem that the complementarian position is unassailable.There are reasons to think otherwise however.

1) Passages that show examples of women exercising teaching and/or religious authority over men

Deborah - As a judge in pre-monarchical Israel she wielded considerable power, both legal and religious (Judges 4). She settled disputes, told a male leader what the will of God was, and together with Barak lead the people in a hymn of celebration (Judges 5). Some of those hymn lyrics were very flattering of Deborah. Verse 7 - “The peasantry ceased in Israel, Until I, Deborah, arose, Until I arouse, a mother in Israel.”

Some might object that Deborah’s role was allowed only because of lack of male leadership (especially on Barak’s part), but it should be noted that scripture only raises that issue concerning Deborah’s role (or more accurately, Barak’s lack of a role) as military leader, not her position as judge and prophetess. If there were anything wrong with Deborah’s role she could have judged along side her husbandLappidoth , and have him give the decisions (thus ensuring male authority). In addition, there was another judge and military leader at the same time, Shamgar, who could have assumed Deborah’s position (and especially Barak’s military role) if a male leader was strictly necessary.

Huldah - King Josiah (one of the godly kings) sent a delegation lead by the High Priest to her in order to inquire about a scripture passage (2nd Chronicles 34:14-33). Huldah provides an authoritative application of the passage to the High Priest and thus to King Josiah. If a male leader was needed for an authoritative application of scripture, contemporaries ofHuldah, such as Jeremiah and Zephaniah could have been sought.

Priscilla - Along with her husband Aquila, she helped Paul establish a church in Ephesus, making her a co-leader in evangelism and church planting (Acts 28:18-28).They also instructed the male leader Apollos “in the way of God.”The fact that Priscilla is listed before her husband in the teaching of Apollos, when she is not in some of the other passages where she and her husband are mentioned, could imply that she was more prominent in the teaching field than her husband. In any event, there’s no doubt she had some teaching authority in religious matters over a man.

Junia - Along with Andronicus is called “outstanding among the apostles.”(Romans 16:7). It’s not certain exactly what this position meant, but it’s certainly a position of some leadership. In 1st Thessalonians 2:6 - Paul calls himself and his co-workers apostles and notes that they have “been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel” and that “as apostles of Christ we might have exerted our authority.”

Phoebe - Paul (Romans 16:1) calls her “a servant” of the church of Cenchrea. Some translations render “servant” as deaconess, which might be a good translation given Phoebe’s gender. However, it’s the same word that is translated as deacon or deacons elsewhere, such as in Philippians 1. That’s a mixed signal to say the least if male leadership is required.

Women prophets - In 1st Corinthians 11rules are given for women’s dress while they are prophesying in mixed gatherings. But what is a prophet (other than one who prophecies)? It can mean someone who speaks for God, especially revealing future events. However, according to Crosswalk’s Greek Lexicon a prophet is defined as, “in the religious assemblies of the Christians, they were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak, having power to instruct, comfort, encourage, rebuke, convict, and stimulate, their hearers.” Thus, Paul here assumes a measure of authority for women.

2) Elements within the complementarian proof-texts and other passages are dismissed as cultural

Looking at 1st Timothy 2 again, it certainly seems that verses 13-15 (including the baffling statement that women will be saved through child-bearing) that the prohibition of women teaching men can be taken as a trans-cultural absolute command. However, it would also apply to verse 9’s command against braided hair. If verse 9 can be taken as applying culturally, then it’s likely verse 12 can be as well.

In 1st Corinthians 11it’s stated that “nature itself” is said to show that long hair is a disgrace for a man and that women must pray with their head covered. Paul says that “if anyone wants to be contentious about this about this, we have no other practice - nor do the churches of God.”This is condemnation in the strongest possible terms, and the reason given “nature itself” certainly does not seem to be a culturally specific reason.

So why do most not following these commands today? Perhaps a part of the reason is examples in scripture of men having long hair, such as the prophet Samuel (something he would hardly do if long hair being a disgrace was an absolute).It seems we must take the hair commands in 1st Corinthians 11 to be cultural, or we would have a contradiction in scripture.

There are other examples of passages that everyone takes to be cultural, such as the “holy kiss” passages. Is there a reason to think that the passages that limit the role of women in church leadership are such passages? There were many practical reasons to limit women in leadership. Women at the time were less educated and in some places it’s clear that the women the N.T. letters address were quarrelsome and spoke out of place. More seriously, society largely was not ready for woman leaders, and having such would have been a hindrance to the evangelistic mission of the early church.

Given the passages about women leaders in scripture, including some that exercised teaching and religious authority over men, there arises an apparent contradiction with passages such as 1st Timothy 2. Either “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” and passages that assume male leadership have to be taken as limited to situation the passage was addressing, or it has to be explained why it wasn’t wrong for women leaders in scripture to exercise the authority that they did. There is a clear cultural application for some related passages (long hair for men, head coverings for women, braided hair prohibition, etc). We also have the examples of women such asHuldah and Priscilla. The best approach then to the whole witness of scripture, is to assume that the passages limiting women’s leadership possibilities in the church are for the specific situations addressed by those passages and are not absolutes.

[They are other topics that would need to be addressed for a complete understanding of the issue, such as the effect the creation, the fall, and new creation has on leadership.They’ve been omitted for space reasons, but I can write about those some other time of anyone is actually interested].

Women in Church Leadership: The Controversy

Published by Jasen Tracy June 18, 2007 in Religion. 18 Comments

The Christian Reformed Church, voted last week to remove the word “male” from its requirements for church office, thus allowing women to serve in all roles. I do not know much about the Christian Reformed church, but they seem like a fairly conservative organization.

The debate over the role of women in church leadership has been a contentious one in Evangelical circles for several decades. There are two major groups on the issue. Complementarians hold that women should not be ordained as pastors and should be excluded from certain leadership roles in the Church. Some complementarians hold that it is wrong for women to give religious instruction to men. Egalitarians believe that roles in the Church should not be restricted on the bias of gender. There are of course those who conceive of the issue in different terms, or hold to something of a mediating position (such as those who hold that women can teach men but that they need to be under the authority of a male senior pastor).

Probably the two best known organizations formed about this issue are The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (complementarian), and Christians for Biblical Equality (egalitarian).

Recent years have seen an increase in divisiveness between the two sides as groups such as Together for the Gospel, have pushed the issue to one of essential status, holding that churches cannot accept women in certain roles “without damaging its witness to the gospel” (pdf). A common concern of such groups is that the allowing of women in the church leadership necessitates a slippery slope that will lead to the denial of the authority of scripture and in the acceptance of homosexuality. (This despite churches such as the Church of the Nazarene and the Salvation Army, which have both accepted women in all leadership positions for over a hundred years without any further steps down the slippery slope).

Given the confusion over the term Evangelical in recent years, it will be interesting to see if the role of women in church leadership will play a factor in defining what it means to be an Evangelical. Next week I will give a brief defense of the biblical egalitarian position.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Nov
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Zeal For Truth